September 28, 2006
Goldy Confesses...

...to being a terrorist.

Well, not really. He's being tongue-in-cheek in an attempt to condemn the legislation that passed the US Senate today regarding interrogation of terrorists, as well as the structure of military tribunals to hold terrorists to account.

One of the many things Goldy, and other liberals similarly aghast, has missed in this whole debate is that we're talking about terrorist detainees who are not US citizens. Contrary to the current liberal talking point, no one in America is losing their Constitutional rights, the law doesn't apply to us. It applies to how our government treats enemy combatants, avowed foes of our nation, who are captured while operating outside of the long-standing laws of war - and frankly this legislation gives such detainees "judicial rights" they've never enjoyed in the past.

Much more to come on this topic later. Much more. And as one might imagine, the history major in me will have a thing or two to say.

UPDATE: David Postman covers the stark contrast between Mike McGavick and Maria Cantwell on this issue. As I said, more to come.

Posted by Eric Earling at September 28, 2006 11:59 PM | Email This
Comments
1. That little Socialist censor! He is censoring my posts. Apparently he couldn't handle the truth any longer.

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 12:02 AM
2. Democrats never met a terrorist they didn't like. Zacarias Mousaoui was the beneficiary of the Democrat Jaime Gorelick's infmaous "wall of seperation" that prevented law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information.

Democrat Barbara Lee voted against going after the terrorist in Afghanistan and was hailed as "courageous" by her fellow Democrats.


And today, Democrats Maria Cantwell and Patty (Osama Mamma) Murray, voted against prosecuting terorrists.

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 12:07 AM
3. Nancy Pelosi exploded yesterday when she thought republicans were implying that democrats were soft on terror. Well, it's rather true. If Dems want to be that way, oh well. But we cannot elect them to lead this nation. Islamofacism is real and a HUGE worldwide problem that will not be wished away.

We need REAL MEN (and WOMEN) to lead with no apology when it comes to national security. Voting for someone like Burner is great if you're a woman and don't mind wearing a burka. But most of us DO mind and we will vote only for those who are willing to take terrorism seriously and PROTECT AMERICA INSTEAD OF BLAMING IT AND CODDLING THOSE WHO WANT TO KILL US.

Posted by: This Girl's Voting for the Sheriff on September 29, 2006 12:15 AM
4. My understanding of the concern about this bill is that the president is empowered in this bill to define and declare who has provided assistance or support against the United States, with no statement that non-citizens or people abroad are meant -- even though that is the assumption. In the law, it could be an NRA member, if contributing to the NRA was felt by a future president to be "against" government authority.
It becomes an unlimited Presidential charter to lock up at his convenience, with no habeas corpus rights unless a trial with conviction occurs.

Posted by: Apprehensive Libertarian on September 29, 2006 12:19 AM
5. Lord knows we have seen Democrats use government privilege to go after political opponents.

Remember Craig Livingstone?

"Livingstone resigned June 26 after revelations surfaced that his office had improperly obtained over 700 FBI background files, many on Republicans, including former Bush officials Marlin Fitzwater, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft. Clinger's oversight committee and Whitewater independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr are investigating the affair."


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9607/25/livingstone.hrc/index.shtml

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 12:38 AM
6. PBJ

You handed Goldy his head on a platter over there, I was laughin out loud just reading it....

Thanks!

Posted by: GS on September 29, 2006 01:45 AM
7. Although it's tempting to say so, I don't think Democrats are totally cheering for the bad guys, are commies or even necessarily Socialists with a capital "S". I think of them as being so misguided and ignorant of the world that they constantly seek validation for themselves through the affinity and accolades from others. For instance, why the need to tailor our policies regarding the war on terror so that social democrats across europe approve? Those same social democrats have hated the U.S.A. for years. Remember the huge demonstrations against President Reagan during the 1980s for stationing nuclear armed cruise missles in Europe? Why do democrats feel the need to give open or not-so-open admiration to thugs like Castro, or to "national liberation movements" like the PLO, etc.? I suspect it's because they feel an emotional need to be moral champions without taking the time to think about the implications of the individuals and movements that they so admire. The world IS better off without Saddam Hussein and the Taliban running, respectively, Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq IS a central battlefield in the war on terror. The war on terror will last for decades and will encompass other states such as Iran that have had free reign since President Jimmy Carter helped to depose the Shah in which to develop a nuclear armed theocracy. Carter, btw, decided to stop backing the Shah out of his much publicized concern for "human rights". You don't hear Democrats talk very much about human rights in Iran for the past thiry years. Ultimately, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, leadership is the absence of consensus. America leads and should not allow socialist mobs in Paris or Luxembourg influence our policies, even if it does cause Goldie, Darcy Burner, Ted Kennedy, ad nauseum to feel lonely.

Posted by: Attila on September 29, 2006 07:01 AM
8. pbj, you were a tad bit over the line over there. LOL, though. I only go there when SP and a good poster like GS says it is okay because of issues the web site promoter has with himself.

Posted by: swatter on September 29, 2006 07:08 AM
9. I don't vote democratic or republican...I vote for Americans. Americans who get it, understand what we face as a nation, as a culture. It is just coincidence that only republicans are truly Americans. God forbid we, as a nation ever see our citizens jump to their deaths from 85 floors above ground, but if it should happen I will think of Goldy, Maria & Patty and wonder if they are smiling...sure they will.

Posted by: NoPartyAmerican on September 29, 2006 08:02 AM
10. I have never received a satisfactory answer to a few questions:

How does a foreign national, caught on a battle field or in a intelligence operation on foreign soil come under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution?

Under the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War they do not meet the criteria for POW status.

They are not a party to the GC, they are not operating under the authority of a country that is a signatory to the GC.

The next question is: by what logical and legal reasoning do GC protections apply?

How does the the capture, detention and questioning of an foreign illegal combatant on foreign soil affect the Constitutional rights of US citizens?

Finally for Sen. McCain how does our treatment of illegal combatants and non-signatories to the GC affect the treatment we would have for legal combatants and signatories GC and conversely the treatment of our POWs by other signatories to the GC?

Posted by: JCM on September 29, 2006 08:20 AM
11. I believe that the United States of America was founded on certain bedrock principles - that all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights. This law represents a partial abandonment of the principles that make the United States a great nation. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read that this law will allow the indefinite detention of an enemy combatant at the pleasure of the executive, and that the executive may define anyone - even a US Citizen on US soil - as an enemy combatant. If the law is silent on how an enemy combatant is to be defined, that's as good as admitting anyone can be difined that way.

To me these military tribunals have just a whiff of Stalin's show trials about them. In the Soviet Union people had "access to judicial process." They even had "trials" by their "peers." Secret trials, hidden evidence, the rights of the executive to declare anyone an enemy - it appears that we are setting up the machinery of despotism in order to protect ourselves. I believe that this administration will not use this machinery to intentionally do evil. But that's not good enough.

Surly our lives, property and freedom were at more peril from the Soviet Union and it's many allies than we ever will be from islamic extremists. And yet over the past six years conservatives have acted like chicken little squealing "the sky is falling! The sky is falling! We must give more power to the executive and the federal government to save ourselves!" We didn't need these military tribunals to defeat a vast, ruthless and intelligent enemy that had the power to destroy our entire nation in 30 minutes. Do we really need them to combat several thousand poorly financed third world religious nuts?

We should take the threat posed by islamic terrorists seriously. But I believe that this administration is creating the wrong tools for the fight - tools which could disfigure our nation. Frankly, they are doing a terrible job fighting this war. They lose battle after battle, and my hope in a positive outcome to the war is dimming. I wish to god I had an alternative to chose from other than this administration or the democrats.

Posted by: Sstar on September 29, 2006 08:43 AM
12. If there is one thing that I really, truely would like to see it would be the Goldy's of the world living in a country where Islamo Fascism holds sway. Before you ask, no I will not take that back adn no I would not feel one bit sorry for them.

Posted by: JDH on September 29, 2006 08:45 AM
13. Went over to read at HA for the first time in a long while, as I just hate it there, too disgusting. I thought it was hilarious and revealing that Goldy's immediate resonse to being contradicted was "eat me". That about sums him up.

Posted by: katomar on September 29, 2006 09:06 AM
14. Yep, Katomar. It's easy to feel 'defiled' after going to HA, so I really try to minimze any visits to that cesspool.

Posted by: Misty on September 29, 2006 09:22 AM
15. Goldy is in deep. He's so thoroughly a part of the Democrat and Nutroots machine and a parrot of the daily talking points. I think that's really what's behind most of what Goldy says and most of why the Democrats behave the way they do. I don't for a minute believe that the Dems want more terror or that they truly hate America to the point that they want to destroy the place where they live. But, what is absolutely ingrained in the psychology of the left leaning mind is groupthink.

Dems will steadfastly cling together in their message as a way of affirmation through numbers, even when they don't really believe what they are saying, or even know that it is wrong. This whole terrorist detainee huff is a giant nothing. Anyone with common sense can see that the primary goal is simply to obtain as much intelligence as possible and to prevent as much of the threat to the US as possible. That's it. There's no boogeyman. The issue is being spotlighted by Democrats purely for political machination and as means of proving themselves to each other.

It's pathetic to see low level parrots like Goldy on a local blog stage. He's just fanning and strutting his plumage for the requisite display of adherence to the blue ideology. Watching Progressives, Dems and Nutrooters like Goldy really is a lot like watching a wildlife show on television.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 29, 2006 09:35 AM
16. Sstar,

You are correct, about all men being created with certain inalienable rights. However the legal protection of those rights is available to those whose governments recognize those rights. Just ask the folks in Darfur.

The terrorists' recognize no one else's rights, in fact they do not believe in individual rights. They believe that Allah has decreed that all person will worship Allah and that any means justify that end. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE OR RIGHTS IN THE MATTER in the mind of the Islmofacist.

However the next part of your argument drops into the morass of moral equivalence.

Having innate rights does not mean that an individual cannot void their rights through their actions.

Society has determined through hard and bloody lessons to observe certain conventions. When member of the world wide society complete ignores the conventions they by their own violation they voided their rights. The survival of society demands this, we routinely deny a robber of his right to liberty, a murderer his right to life. If we did not revoke these rights in punishment we could not exact the simplest punishments for the willful violation of another persons, life, liberty or property.

The terrorists' who willfully, intentionally and with malice and forethought targets innocents for death and injury is not the moral equivalent of a law abiding citizen of any country, or the lawful combatant wearing a uniform, carrying arms openly and operating under the command and control of a lawful government.

The terrorists' action violate every aspect of basic human rights, they deny others life, liberty, properly and pursuit of happiness, they deny others the protection of law. They deny others due process etc...

Their own actions condemn them as unfit for society.

A terrorist captured on a battle field is and held indefinitely without trial is allowed by societal conventions. We are recognizing we are a civilized society. We established rules for armed conflict and the consequences for violation of those rules.

The terrorists' made the choice to violate the rules of civilized society, the consequences were known.

It is in no way shape or form a violation of their rights to exercise established societal conventions upon those who have egregiously violated the enacted international law and conventions.

Posted by: JCM on September 29, 2006 09:43 AM
17. Reluctantly, I went over to HA to read the comment thread. As usual, it quickly disintegrates into a quagmire of ad hominem attacks and profanity. Janet S makes a valiant attempt to make a point, but you can't argue with fools. Unlike here at SP, there's no semblance of a rational dialogue. No semblance of self restraint. Just a lot of unhinged screeching. That's par for the course for today's Nutroots. And they wonder why they are losing.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 29, 2006 09:47 AM
18. There's a lot of talk on the left about these rights being applied to those "accused" of being terrorists. This is the invalid criminalization or legalization of war circumstances. Yes, there is international law, but there is no inherent need for the US to abide by anything other than its own constitution as applied to its own citizens. It's fine for us to debate the degree to which we confer power on the executive branch, and there are many examples of past use of that power during war which are far greater than that used in this administration, but the reality is that there is no inherent obligation of the US to treat terrorists as criminals or to confer any special dignity to enemy combatants.

As a matter of course and civility, we do provide a very benign environment to enemy detainees, but we have no obligation to do so. International law is not enforceable in any meaningful way.

I suspect we will see more terrorists recruited from the pool of US citizens as a way of further miring our debate as to what is permissible in intelligence gathering. Imagine an all out ACLU assault for terrorist rights because the terrorist is a card carrying US citizen. It's coming.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 29, 2006 10:02 AM
19. They are delusional over there. There is absolutely no way this law can violate the Bill of Rights, which guarantees due process and a speedy trial to all American citizens. They act like the government is going to round them up for what they write on a message board.

Posted by: Palouse on September 29, 2006 10:04 AM
20. JCM

I agree 100% that the members of the Taliban, Al Quada, Hamas, Hezbollah ad nauseum are detestible excuses for human beings. As you said, their actions make them unfit for society.

However, I'm not talking about their rights. I'm talking about your rights and my rights. We are protected from our own government by the checks and balances inherant in our constitution. We are protected by the judicial process. This law erodes OUR protection from our own government.

In addition, must we lower ourselves to their level to win?

Posted by: Sstar on September 29, 2006 10:09 AM
21. Sstar, tell me how this law can override the Bill of Rights by denying YOU due process?

Posted by: Palouse on September 29, 2006 10:11 AM
22. Liberal (Sstar et al):

Please post the EXACT portions of the bill that "erodes OUR protection from our own government".

Post the text and a link to the source so independent readers can verify. Otherwise you are just repeating your DNC talking points without ever having thought about it. That makes you nothing but a mindless sycophant who is easily manipulated.

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 10:24 AM
23. Sstar,

Palouse and pbj ask the correct question, I would also reiterate my point.

We as a world wide society have determined the lawful conduct of armed conflict and to whom the law applies.

Even if we summarily shot them on the battlefield as is permitted, we would not be lowering ourselves to their level.

We would be acting within established laws and conventions, when we capture them, feed them and extend any protections not required by law we are exceeding the moral and legal requirements.

In the worst case of US abuse, are you equating the humiliation of being forced to pose in a naked human pyramid to sawing the off head of an completely innocent party (Nick Berg)?

If that is where you are going you are morally bankrupt, and logically impaired.

The application of temporary physical discomforts to these individuals, not for the debauched pleasure of inflicting pain, but for the express purpose of obtaining information that would save your life. Just how does this lower us to the level of the terrorists?

Posted by: JCM on September 29, 2006 10:37 AM
24. Sstar, tell me how this law can override the Bill of Rights by denying YOU due process?

This law gives the Pentagon the ability to deem anyone, U.S. citizen or not, an enemy combatant and detain them indefinitely. For some more background (Eric's original post is dead wrong), you can read Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman or Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman explain how the wording of this bill makes it very possible for American citizens to be detained without due process.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 10:41 AM
25. Did you read the link you posted?

the Constitution would set some limits on who could be detained, at least with respect to U.S. citizens and persons aliens detained domestically (and possibly even with respect to aliens detained overseas, depending on whether the Court holds that they have Fifth Amendment protections -- a very important and unresolved pending question).

Posted by: Palouse on September 29, 2006 10:49 AM
26. Did you read the whole post? He later concludes the following:

The problem with all three of these potential limiting principles, however, is that they would be applied in the first instance by the Bush Administration (which has demonstrated an eagerness to (mis)read such limits exceedingly narrowly), and this bill would significantly restrict the ability of detainees -- especially aliens -- to seek effective review of such decisions.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 10:52 AM
27. That's his opinion. Notwithstanding the aliens detained outside of this country, nothing in this bill affects US citizens in this country as was previously stated. The Bill of Rights is still firmly intact.

Posted by: Palouse on September 29, 2006 10:55 AM
28. Palouse,
If you want to understand what this is about a little bit better, you can look at what happened with Jose Padilla. Padilla was an American citizen declared an enemy combatant and held without due process for years. This legislation is meant, in part, to allow that to be done in a legal way, which means that U.S. citizens have now had a fundamental right taken away from them.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 10:59 AM
29. Quality of debate: I have a magnetic yellow ribbon on the rear hatch of my car sporting "support our troops" and a bumper sticker on the same stating "Terrorism is War".
In Seattle's U-District this morning I had a wack-job behind me in his beater, whilst in line at a stop light, repeatedly honking his horn and flipping me off. All I can say is: "well done, liberals!".
I remain unconvinced the libs are going to capture either house of congress come November. They will be undone by their own words and deeds.

Posted by: Attila on September 29, 2006 11:00 AM
30. Solution: Shoot 'em on the battlefield. If high value terrorists are captured and we want to interrogate, turn them over to one of our Arab allies and let them do the interrogation, their way. The entire point of housing these guys in Guantanamo in relative comfort is to keep them from returning to their compatriots and fighting again. If the left doesn't want us to do that, then we should just shoot them where they stand.

Posted by: katomar on September 29, 2006 11:02 AM
31. Um, Attila, you probably cut him off.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 11:05 AM
32. The Geneva convention allows the capturing country to hold combatants as POWs without trial until hostilities cease.

If they want us to follow the rules, then we should just lock em up till the war on terror is over.

Posted by: karl on September 29, 2006 11:05 AM
33. So Katomar, and a few of the others here, I have some questions. If you agree that in order to win in Iraq and to defeat terrorism there, we must detain all enemy combatants - which as defined by the bill passed yesterday, includes those who purposefully and materially support hostilities against the United States - then the 60% of Iraqis who support attacks on American troops are clearly "enemy combatants" who need to be detained. Does that mean that victory in Iraq will come when we start rounding those people up en masse and sending them to prison? Do you really believe that that's going to somehow work to bring about stability there?

The success of the United States of America, and how it was able to defeat Hitler and the Soviet Union lied in the fact that we believed that the foundation of liberty that we promise to our citizens is a universal right. We didn't win those battles because our strength made people fear not being allied with us. We won those battles because we stood up for liberty and people desired to be allied with us. The path that this legislation sets us on is one where the people of the world who crave the same kind of liberty that Americans have enjoyed for years have to look elsewhere for someone to give it to them.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 11:19 AM
34. Padilla took up arms against the United States. He fought AGAINST US forces in Afghanistan. He wasn't just some guy who hated our government. That said, he should be tried for treason and executed.

Your side acts as if this law is going to allow the federal government to round up everyone it doesn't like. Nothing is further from the truth.

Posted by: Palouse on September 29, 2006 11:23 AM
35. We defeated Hitler using real force. Force that only came after our Appeasement Left stopped looking the other way and ignoring the growing threat of Nazism. History repeats...

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 29, 2006 11:30 AM
36. "This law gives the Pentagon the ability to deem anyone, U.S. citizen or not, an enemy combatant and detain them indefinitely. For some more background (Eric's original post is dead wrong), you can read Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman or Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman explain how the wording of this bill makes it very possible for American citizens to be detained without due process."


And who is Bruck Ackerman?

According to , "His major works include Social Justice in the Liberal State (1980)" in which "Ackerman addresses the positive case for a liberalism that glorifies neither the state bureaucracy nor the private market." Link

Nope - no bias there. ;)


Marty Lederman

From the Goergetown Law Website:

Professor Lederman was an Attorney Advisor in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002, where he concentrated on questions involving freedom of speech, the Religion Clauses, congressional power and federalism, equal protection, separation of powers, copyright, and food and drug law. Before that, he was an attorney at Bredhoff & Kaiser, where his practice consisted principally of federal litigation, including appeals, on behalf of labor unions, employees and pension funds, with particular emphasis on constitutional law, labor law, civil rights, RICO and employment law."

So a member of the Clinton era justice department is to be trusted interpreting this? You aren't serious are you?


Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 11:33 AM
37. Padilla took up arms against the United States. He fought AGAINST US forces in Afghanistan. He wasn't just some guy who hated our government. That said, he should be tried for treason and executed.

But he wasn't tried. He was held indefinitely. And he was an American citizen. And as both Ackerman and Lederman explain, this new bill doesn't even require that the person have even left the United States to receive this kind of treatment.

We don't know who's going to be rounded up and held indefinitely, because a group in the Pentagon is being given the authority to deem people "enemy combatants". Our justice system is based on the principle that people in our government shouldn't be given such powers.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 11:34 AM
38. "So Katomar, and a few of the others here, I have some questions. If you agree that in order to win in Iraq and to defeat terrorism there, we must detain all enemy combatants - which as defined by the bill passed yesterday, includes those who purposefully and materially support hostilities against the United States - then the 60% of Iraqis who support attacks on American troops are clearly "enemy combatants" who need to be detained. Does that mean that victory in Iraq will come when we start rounding those people up en masse and sending them to prison? Do you really believe that that's going to somehow work to bring about stability there?"

Please show us proof that 60% of Iraqi's are providing material support for attacks. Not some liberal university poll or liberal tink tank poll of 150 people, but rather evidence of such.

And after having watched Dan Rather forge documents, Jayson Blair make things up, Reuters doctor photos and CNN's Eason Jordan passing on whatever propaganda Saddam Hussien dictated, you can understand if we will be a little skeptical.

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 11:38 AM
39. We defeated Hitler using real force. Force that only came after our Appeasement Left stopped looking the other way and ignoring the growing threat of Nazism. History repeats...

The Appeasement Left? FDR was a conservative?! The people who appeased Hitler were on the left? That's news to me! In fact, it was many high-profile business people, including older relatives of our current President who advocated against war with Hitler.

We won World War II because we had a strong coalition of allies fighting together against a universally despised threat to liberty. We will only defeat rogue regimes in the Middle East the same way.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 11:38 AM
40. 31. Um, Attila, you probably cut him off.
Posted by thehim at September 29, 2006 11:05 AM

Tongue-in-cheek?
Or another example of a liberal acting like an ass, and then other liberals blaming the conservative for it?

Posted by: jimg on September 29, 2006 11:43 AM
41. International law expert favors military tribunals
Eve Holwell
Contributing Reporter


Excerpt:

Yale Law School professor Ruth Wedgwood took two stances Monday night that would surprise many people. She told a small audience in the Law School auditorium that she is a "New York liberal," but also supports President George W. Bush's proposal to use military tribunals in the U.S. fight against terrorism.

Wedgwood's lecture was part of the "Democracy, Security and Justice" series the University began after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Wedgwood said the special military tribunals authorized by Bush on Nov. 13 are the best possible option in a world where Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network have turned U.S. "virtues into vulnerabilities."

She compared the military tribunals to three other potential options -- an ad hoc international tribunal, a permanent international criminal tribunal, or U.S. federal courts.

With international tribunals, each individual scenario brings troubling complications, Wedgwood said. For instance, in the current situation, a wide variety of countries would have to be represented in order to ensure a fair trial. But some governments may not allow their judges to serve, and some Muslim judges may refuse to sit with Israeli colleagues.

Another problem noted by Wedgwood is that these tribunals have not yet shown the efficiency to handle large numbers of the accused. Although Wedgwood says she is a "big fan" of the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague, she pointed out that the tribunal has only processed 21 cases to date.

Wedgwood said setting up a permanent international criminal tribunal is subject to similar problems.

The last option of trying the accused in federal courts is particularly problematic for Wedgwood. She believes that in most cases the openness of federal courts is not appropriate during a continuous war. During the federal trial of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, potentially harmful information was revealed, Wedgwood said.

Full Story

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 11:44 AM
42. Please show us proof that 60% of Iraqi's are providing material support for attacks. Not some liberal university poll or liberal tink tank poll of 150 people, but rather evidence of such.

Right here

But of course, the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes is just a front for Al-Qaeda, right? Of course it is! Because in wingnutland, every source that says something bad is trying to harm America!! Wheeeee! Ignorance is fun!!

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 11:46 AM
43. Tongue-in-cheek?
Or another example of a liberal acting like an ass, and then other liberals blaming the conservative for it?

How do you know it's a liberal? Do you just assume that any person driving in the U-District is a liberal?

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 11:48 AM
44. "The Appeasement Left? FDR was a conservative?! The people who appeased Hitler were on the left? That's news to me! In fact, it was many high-profile business people, including older relatives of our current President who advocated against war with Hitler."

Yes, the appeasment left. Joseph Kennedy, the father of Ted Kennedy.


"By early 1940, when Jack began his last semester at Harvard, most of Europe had been crushed by the Nazi war machine, and Britain lay under siege. Ambassador Joseph Kennedy faced harsh public criticism for his appeasement of Hitler..."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/kennedy_early.html

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 11:49 AM
45. thehim,

Due process has been afford to Padilla. While you may not agree with the rulings, the law has been followed.

Jose Padilla v. C.T. Hanft, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, September 9, 2005 [reversing a lower court, denying Padilla's habeas appeal and holding that the "dirty bomb" suspect, who is also a US citizen, can be detained without charges indefinitely as an "enemy combatant"]. Excerpt: The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.

We conclude that the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed.

Padilla was not arbitrarily detained, he was found by rule of law to be an enemy combatant, the militarily detained.

If you or I are picked up the Law and Constitution apply, they have to show to a court cause to hold a suspect, show that they qualify for military detention.

The Padilla case doesn't support your point, it reinforces the point Palouse, pbj and I are making.

Posted by: JCM on September 29, 2006 11:51 AM
46. PBJ,
Want some conservatives complaining about the bill. How about here, here, and here. You could also read Andrew Sullivan, George Will, or a number of other conservatives who are appalled by this.

The one thing all of you don't seem to understand is that this is not a debate between liberal and conservative, it's a debate between libertarian and authoritarian, and many of you are openly questioning some of the libertarian principles that this country was founded upon.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 11:57 AM
47. "Right here

But of course, the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes is just a front for Al-Qaeda, right? Of course it is! Because in wingnutland, every source that says something bad is trying to harm America!! Wheeeee! Ignorance is fun!!"

I am glad you are enjoying your own ignorance.

From your own source:

"About 61 percent approved of the attacks"

Approving of is NOT participating in. I am sure 90% of the liberals support assassinating BUSH but that is not the same as actually carrying out the act now is it?

Furthermore, let us look at the sample they took of 25 million people, again from your own source:

"The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."


A sample of 150 people out of 25 million can hardly be considered representative or significant.

Enjoy your ignorance. At least something makes liberals happy.

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 11:58 AM
48. "Want some conservatives complaining about the bill. How about here, here, and here. You could also read Andrew Sullivan, George Will, or a number of other conservatives who are appalled by this.

The one thing all of you don't seem to understand is that this is not a debate between liberal and conservative, it's a debate between libertarian and authoritarian, and many of you are openly questioning some of the libertarian principles that this country was founded upon."


Don't you have the ability to think for yourself? Or do you need to rely upon what someone else tells you to think? Please point out the EXACT portions of the bill that support your point. It is really quite a simple thing to do if you have actually read the bill. Unless of course there is nothing in the actual bill that was passed and you are trying to avoid the issue.

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 12:02 PM
49. If you or I are picked up the Law and Constitution apply, they have to show to a court cause to hold a suspect, show that they qualify for military detention.

Absolutely not. There's nothing in the bill that says that. It is an assumption made by certain people that it would matter, mainly because they can't seem to convince themselves that the power would be abused, but that's thoroughly naive.

And by the way, the earlier ruling that you reference is completely nullified by more recent rulings, which do state that individuals like Padilla have habeas corpus rights. That's why all this is happening right now, so that Bush can rewrite the law in a way that he hopes the judges can't overturn.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 12:06 PM
50. PBJ,
I'll repost what I posted to Reload earlier this morning and referenced above:

Most of the attention in the press has focused on subsection (i) of the definition, which would designate as an UEC any "person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces)." And that subsection is, indeed, broad, and fairly indeterminate, depending on how "materially supported hostilities" is interpreted (something that the Administration apparently could do without much or any judicial review).

But the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any person "who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all.

This definition is not limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's not limited to aliens -- it covers U.S. citizens as well. It's not limited to persons captured or detained overseas. And it is not even limited to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, authorized by Congress on September 18, 2001. Indeed, on the face of it, it's not even limited to a time of war or armed conflict; it could apply in peacetime.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 12:10 PM
51. PBJ posted:
"The PIPA poll, which included an oversample of 150 Sunni Iraqis, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."

A sample of 150 people out of 25 million can hardly be considered representative or significant.

Enjoy your ignorance. At least something makes liberals happy.

Hahaha! Can you even read? It wasn't a sample of 150 people, it's just saying that the Sunnis in the survey were oversampled by 150.

My god, you are one dumb human being...

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 12:14 PM
52. TheHim,

Do you not have the ability to comprehend? You mindlessly cut and paste opinions from others. Link to the SOURCE document, the actualy bill, and then show me exactly where is supports your point.

Don't go to the blogosphere and give me second and third hand quotes. Reading tea leaves would be more accurate.

You are simply too lazy to actually read the bill yourself.

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 12:17 PM
53. thehim--can you provide anything else other than a Q&A of 150 Iraqis done by a liberal institution? After al-Zarqawi was killed, the terrorists have been concentrating on killing more of the US forces. The Iraqis themselves are very annoyed with these thugs and are fighting back by turning them in or shooting first when these bozos show up. It's unfortunate the mainstream media keeps putting these clowns in the headlines. They are nothing but murderous thugs and deserve no special rights when captured. Too bad spineless weenies like yourself so willing to appease these goons at the expense of our own way of life.

Having a heart to heart chat with these lowlifes just buys them the time they need to gear up against us. The MSM is not reporting what is really going on in Iraq (a HUGE bone of contention with our brave fighting forces), so I would suggest you not rely soley on Bill Clinton or the Seattle newspapers for your information.

It is really pathetic knowing your kind would much rather give in to these cutthroats instead of defending our country so long as you could continue to have a "meaningful dialogue". Meaningful dialogue did not work in Tibet or Nazi Germany and it won't work with the islamofascists.

Posted by: Burdabee on September 29, 2006 12:21 PM
54. What a bunch of narcissitic dufusses ! First off, the Geneva Convention should not apply to any terrorist (not US Citizens) that have no allegiance to any country. It's like saying the emperor is wearing no clothes, by replacing emperor with terrorist and clothes with military uniform. Goldy is blowing smoke out of his HA.

This bloviating can be summarized as follows:
The Dems are getting desperate by seeing the latest poll numbers - and going offensive starting with Clinton's strategic tirade on FOX News last Sunday. They are trying to energize their base and win over the ~20% independents nationwide. If the Repubs were smart, they would get offensive back and refute their assertions with facts and burst their balloon (which is really a condom) by puncturing it with truth.

We'll see how smart or clueless the Republicans really are over the next month...

Posted by: KS on September 29, 2006 12:23 PM
55. TheHim...you contend that any US citizen can be detained as an "enemy combatant" under the definition defined in the bill. However, where in the bill does it say that habeas corpus is suspended for US citizens detained in such a manner?

Posted by: Palouse on September 29, 2006 12:25 PM
56. Fools... Of course this will be abused. All laws are...

So Eric, I work for the man and you pissed me off. I got your ugly ass in my cell and I say you are an enemy combatant, or an alien, or whatever. You are held incommunicado. Nobody even knows you are held... How do you prove you are held unjustly?

My suggestion to anyone would be: Be ready. If somebody bangs on your door at night claiming to be a Federal agent, squeeze, don't pull... And just keep squeezing.

Posted by: Playin' Possum on September 29, 2006 12:28 PM
57. If we had implemented the desired strategy by the Dipstick Dems in Congress under the auspices of the ACLU and if the MSM would have reported like they do now in World War II that would have dramatically changed the outcome. Instead, we would surely be speaking German or Japanese today and would have been beaten in Europe and also in the Pacific.

Posted by: KS on September 29, 2006 12:28 PM
58. He won't tell you where in the bill it says that because he hasn't read it. He is merely repeating talking points from the liberal blogosphere. Ctrl C, Ctrl P is the extent of his intellect.

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 12:28 PM
59. If we had implemented the desired strategy by the Dipstick Dems in Congress under the auspices of the ACLU and if the MSM would have reported like they do now in World War II that would have dramatically changed the outcome. Instead, we would surely be speaking German or Japanese today and would have been beaten in Europe and also in the Pacific.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that locking up all our Japanese citizens during WWII was essential to winning? We absolutely did not mistreat our POW's in WWII in order to extract information from them. In fact, it's well-known that the German POW's that we captured during that war were treated extremely well.

Don't forget that part of the rise of Hitler's power came from the fact that many Germans agreed with Hitler that the German press was a major cause for Germany's loss to the allies in WWI.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 12:37 PM
60. He won't tell you where in the bill it says that because he hasn't read it. He is merely repeating talking points from the liberal blogosphere.

Half of the opinions I've posted here have been from conservatives. Once again, this is not a liberal-conservative issue, it's a libertarian-authoritarian issue. I've only read parts of the bill, but I happen to trust the opinion of legal experts, especially those who have been more correct than the traditional media in reporting on these matters in the past. But you're more than welcome to keep listening to the people who were telling you that there were WMD's in Iraq and that Saddam was helping out al-Qaeda.

Posted by: thehim on September 29, 2006 12:40 PM
61. So again my question is, where is habeas corpus suspended for US citizens under this bill? Perhaps you can search for an expert answer to that question.

Posted by: Palouse on September 29, 2006 12:44 PM
62. Playin'

Uh huh! Like they managed to keep Padilla under wraps. They haul you off and leave you're family as witnesses? Kill them and leave the bodies? Make you whole family disappear? Your boss and friends won't notice you're gone?

Have any case like you've mentioned come to light?
Any suspected cases out there, missing persons that anyone thinks the government snatched?

After they've made a clean grab, how long do you think before someone leaks to the NYT. If it could damage GWB it somehow manages to leak.

Go put your tinfoil hat back on and take your meds.

Posted by: JCM on September 29, 2006 12:46 PM
63. TheHim:
No, I do not think we should detain the terrorists who are shooting at our guys in Iraq. I think we should kill them. Got it?

Also, we defeated Hitler because we had better, tougher, and more determined military personnel. We also had bigger and more bombs.

We defeated the Soviet Union by making them bankrupt themselves trying to keep pace with our bigger and more plentiful bombs/weapons.

Seeing a pattern here? No whining, no appeasement, no singing kumbaya. Our goal was victory, and we went for it. And when the threat was eliminated, our country adjusted its war footing, went back to business as usual, civil liberties and all.

Posted by: katomar on September 29, 2006 12:51 PM
64. "What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that locking up all our Japanese citizens during WWII was essential to winning? We absolutely did not mistreat our POW's in WWII in order to extract information from them. In fact, it's well-known that the German POW's that we captured during that war were treated extremely well."

I am talking about our interrogation techniques. Locking up Japanese in enturnment camps probably helped. How can you say that it didn't ? That is ignorant and stupid, but it goes along with leftist agenda. Again, the Geneva Convention applied here as both us and the Germans & Japanese wore uniforms. The terrorists do not ! (therefore the Geneva Convention doesn't apply - read it) The terrorists also resort to severing heads of their prisoners, but we don't. Another thing is that the media was under wraps then and sedition was enforced - today there are many cases of sedition by MSM that go unpunished. Because of this, they continue undermining our military effort because they know they can get away with it & they hate Bush.

Still, we should be civilized and do it the right way - personally, I believe that waterboarding should be an option in extreme situations where information that could affect the lives of many is being withheld. Scotland Yard has been effective at uncovering terrorist plots and would be happy if our intelligence could be as good.

Posted by: KS on September 29, 2006 12:54 PM
65. TheHim, Possum - Where does this document support your position? S.3930

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS. (a) IN GENERAL.--The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses specifically made triable by military commission as provided in chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, and chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as enacted by this Act).


§ 948a. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) ALIEN.--The term 'alien' means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.

...

(3) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.--The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means an individual who is--
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
(4) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.--The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.


Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 29, 2006 01:04 PM
66. Waterboarding is soooo extreme and damaging our Special Operation troops get it done to them as part of the training. SEAL trainees get only a few hours sleep during hell week. SERE (Survival Evade Resist Escape) trainees are forced to eat all kinds of nasty stuff, left in the wilderness, subjected to interrogations all in the name of training. The training is harsher than the abuses of Abu Garib.

Let's see what else have we done:
Put them naked in a cold room.
Wake them up at odd times.
Keep them awake for a long time.
Play loud, bad music.
We've probably used drugs.

We've put our guys in jail for faking electrocutions, posing prisoners naked, piling up naked prisoners, intimidating prisoners with a dog.

We've rightfully put our guys in jail when in less than a half a dozen cases they injured or killed a prisoner.

At Gitmo there is 2 lawyers for every terrorist.
They get 4200 calories a day, US combat rations are 3800.
Prayer time 5 times day, even interrupting interrogations.
8 hours uninterrupted sleep.

Every single case of US citizens or anyone arrested in the US has gone through the courts.

To all those whining about the supposed violations of rights. Remember this the enemy in this war would strap a bomb on their body, and walk into the mall food court where you are sitting with your family and blow your child into 100 bloody bits.

While when we catch one we give them two lawyers and decide if running a little water up their nose is cruel. We argue whether the Constitution applies to someone determined to destroy the US and has never set foot in the US.

GET AN F*ING CLUE


Posted by: JCM on September 29, 2006 01:22 PM
67. "Half of the opinions I've posted here have been from conservatives. Once again, this is not a liberal-conservative issue, it's a libertarian-authoritarian issue. I've only read parts of the bill, but I happen to trust the opinion of legal experts, especially those who have been more correct than the traditional media in reporting on these matters in the past. But you're more than welcome to keep listening to the people who were telling you that there were WMD's in Iraq and that Saddam was helping out al-Qaeda."

The only legal experts you have consulted are those who have a liberal bent.

As for who was telling us there were WMD's in Iraq well let's see:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

NOTE: Can't blame the quote above on Bush fooling anyone. This was LONG BEFORE Bush even was elected.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 01:33 PM
68. Sstar, in response to your concern about this law's infringement on the "certain inalienable rights" of the people who would saw your head off with a dull knife given the opportunity, I would quote Oliver Wendell Holmes who was a Supreme Court Chief Justice:

"Your civil rights end where the other fellow's nose begins."

These terrorists have no constitutional rights per se, because they are not citizens. Yet Democrats want them to receive the kind of treatment and access to our legal system, and at any cost, that most American citizens will never enjoy. This is part and parcel of the Democrats' coddling of terrorists and illegal aliens, and indicative of the Democrats' venomous hatred of America.

The next time you see a picture of Ground Zero, thank a Democrat. The next time you see a picture of an illegal alien giving us the finger, thank a Democrat. The next time a terrorist murders dozens of innocent people in an act that that could have been prevented by surveillance of his organization's finances and telephone conversations, thank a Democrat. At least you will be giving credit where credit is due.

The Greatest Generation saw the importance of winning a war on two fronts against two separate enemies whose goal was the annihilation of this country. Based on the dire nature of the threat, Americans chose to temporarily forego certain luxuries and certain freedoms, all with the understanding that these things would be restored at the close of hostilities.

What the Democrats will not tell you, and what too damn many Americans forget, is that the government cannot revoke any of our rights unless we allow them, either openly or tacitly, to do so. That means that is they overstep their bounds, we can kick their arses out if enough people are outraged.

The moral of the story is that if you are not willing to defend your freedom at any cost, somebody will come along who is more than happy to take it from you. It's your choice.

Posted by: ERNurse on September 29, 2006 01:38 PM
69. It's no coincidence that TheHim has not answered my question. The reason is that it doesn't exist in the bill. US citizens are still guaranteed habeas corpus. That means if you, a US citizen, are detained by the US government as an enemy combatant, your case is heard in a US court.

Next.

Posted by: Palouse on September 29, 2006 01:44 PM
70. This is war against terrorists who would kill us. By what metric should we measure the success of such an endeavor? How about terror attacks against us?

From the first WTC terrorist struck against the US about every 2 years, see list below.

Since 9/11 -- none, zip no attacks against US targets (combat troops require a different metric).

Does anyone think they said WOW 9/11 showed them, we'll stop now? Can anyone with a brain think the war on terror and lack of attacks are purely coincidental?

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

September 11, 2001 - Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.

Posted by: JCM on September 29, 2006 01:48 PM
71. JCM

I feel pretty strongly that the United States is the best nation on earth because of its historic commitment to individual liberty. I passionately feel that part of defending our country - or our homeland - is standing up for our commitment to freedom, to justice, to due process and to limited government.

This nation was founded on the idea of limited government based on checks and balances and due process because the founders had a very pessimistic view of human nature. Power corrupts, and this law gives the executive quite a bit of power.

I've seen the arguments that only terrorists and only non-citizens will be subject to detention in secret prisons with only a military tribunal to hear their case. I've also heard that the coercive interrogation that is sanctioned by this law is a kinder and gentler form of torture, leaving hardly any marks at all. And my response, based on the pessimistic view of human nature shared by the founding fathers is: yes, at first.

Once we've set up these secret prisons, formed the military tribunals and trained the interrogators do you think there won't be temptation to use this system elsewhere? History has taught us repeatedly that secret prisons can be abused.

What is especially disappointing is the implication that a free nation that values liberty is not quite up to fighting terrorists. And maybe that's the case. Maybe we have to borrow a few tactics from the Soviet Union to assure our safety. Just a little eavesdropping and a limited secret prison program run by the military.

To sum it up, I'll quote ERNurse: "The moral of the story is that if you are not willing to defend your freedom at any cost, somebody will come along who is more than happy to take it from you. It's your choice." I couldn't have said it better. Just remember, the person who wants to take your freedom may be a part of the Federal Government.

Posted by: Sstar on September 29, 2006 01:59 PM
72. I am constantly so admiring of the logic expressed by so many at this site, and the extensive research done to back up statements. However, no matter how flawless the logic, no matter how well researched and documented a point is, the source problem is that liberal democrats will always put their fingers in their ears and sing la, la, la, la, and then start in again with their paranoid, black helicopter, childish efforts to regain political power. In the meantime, they put all of us at risk, including themselves, their families, their neighbors. Makes you wonder what they really value - liberty, freedom, prosperity, true peace and an end to terrorists attacks worldwide, or Polical Power? As if they don't realize that political victory for them would surely bring a Caliphate to your neighborhood mall in short order and, consequently, an end to their political power.

Posted by: katomar on September 29, 2006 02:06 PM
73. Goldie once again proves he is David KLOWNstein!
What a putz!
Frankly, KLOWNstein is an economic terrorist.
KLOWNstein would love to see all of us eating alfalfa sprouts out of our yards and free-range TOFU is a must.
Karl Marx is Goldie's hero....no doubt.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on September 29, 2006 02:20 PM
74. #7 Attila: It's all about power and nothing else. The Demorats want to be back in power so bad that they will do *anything* to get it. And I mean *anything*. If it requires them destroying the country or helping kill our troops by releasing military secrets to make Bush look bad, than that's what it will take. The end justifies the means. Yes they are Socialists and some probably are out and out Communists. As all the combined alliances of the left (politicians, labor unions, teachers unions, newspapers, television, Hollywood, bureaucrats, Communists, NGOs, past presidents, and more) together bash the present administration 24/7/365 on everything and anything, the rest of the world picks-up on it and reacts accordingly. If we don't respect it why should they? That's why Chavez thought he could come to our home turf make the speech that he did. If you wonder why the rest of the world "hates us", all you have to do is look to how these people have been treating our president . . . all in the name of regaining power.

At this point I haven't figured out if they are just hugely stupid people of treasonous by design. Preliminary opinion says that nobody could be that stupid so they must be doing it on purpose.

Posted by: G Jiggy on September 29, 2006 02:28 PM
75. For the Dems, Progressives, etc. ever notice it's always a theoretical world:

Military tribunals might be abused. A citizen might be detained without justification. A decent law abiding citizen might have their phone tapped or their bank account watched. There might be a looming global warming catastrophe. We might be harming an owl habitat. An old lady without a driver's license might not get to vote. A chemical might cause cancer. There might have been explosives rigged to blow up the twin towers.

The list goes on and on, and there's always more than enough justification for stymying every common sense limit, check, security measure, reduction in funding, more conclusive research before action, etc. that a conservative might propose as a reasonable solution or answer to any given problem or question.

In the real world, solid, best-available-data decisions are made now instead of waiting through endless theoretical hand-wringing.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 29, 2006 02:32 PM
76. In theory I would agree with you. However in this case your theory doesn't apply.

The key to our individual liberty is the rule of law and a government that respects the rule of law.

All of the steps taken by the administration so far, all the things you mention, the secret prisons, coercive interrogations, the military tribunals, even the NSA surveillance, and phone records, all this has been done within the law.

There is disagreement regarding the application of law, resulting in a variety of court findings.

However the executive branch acted with congressional oversight and judicial review within the applicable laws at the time the action was taken. Despite the rhetoric, there has not yet been a court finding that the existing laws have been violated.

The supreme court decision re-defined pre-existing decisions on the same subject, that bizarre MI judge's ruling was roundly critized from all side and quickly was dropped as anything anyone wished to base an argument on.

I would agree with your point if the executive branch was acting unilaterally, and outside of pre-existing legal precedents, but they have not.

Posted by: JCM on September 29, 2006 02:57 PM
77. It appears as though thehim has not had any posts since "Days Of Our Live" and "General Hospital" commenced.

Posted by: Who's side are you on? on September 29, 2006 03:32 PM
78. I've read this "debate" both here and @ HA.

While the concern that a person determined to be an enemy combatant will not have access to our courts system, is a valid emotion, ECs are not without due process.

The military system of justice is NOT a kangaroo court. If it good enough for our fighting troops why isn't it good enough for those who afford us NO rights.

**I suspect soom are really miffed at this because the military system is less lawyer intense than our federal courts.**

The "worry" that a US Citizen will be deemed an enemy combatant is unfounded. A US Citizen found on the field of battle fighting for the enemy is a traitor. Being treated as a combatant is a far less offense.

Posted by: Jack Burton on September 29, 2006 03:41 PM
79. 4 thumbs up on Sstar comments!!

Excellent debate by all.

Posted by: swatter on September 29, 2006 03:46 PM
80.
During and following World War II, we didn't bring German and Japanese war criminals to the U.S. for trial in civilian courts. We tried them by military commissions. In Germany, we prosecuted 1,672 individuals for war crimes before U.S. military commissions. Convictions were obtained in 1,416 cases. In Japan, we tried 996 suspected war criminals before military commissions--of which 856 were convicted. These conviction rates are not out of line with normal, non-military commission outcomes--indeed, they are lower than the felony conviction rate in the U.S. federal courts last year.

DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
PAUL WOLFOWITZ
BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
"MILITARY COMMISSIONS"
DECEMBER 12, 2001

Military Tribunals trying war criminals have a higher acquittal rate than US criminal courts.

I would suspect that happens because our Officer Corps is comprised of Professional Warriors, who when tapped for the duty take the responsibility very seriously. It would be an affront to them personally and professionally to take part in a kangaroo court. Our system of government produces that kind of warrior.

Posted by: JCM on September 29, 2006 04:04 PM
81. Good points Sstar.

It amazes me to look at all the "conservatives" here so willing to grant this Administration such sweeping powers.

As I have said before, we managed to defeat Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the cold war Soviets without sacrificing our moral high-ground when it comes to containing and interrogating the most barbaric of our enemies. Giving up these civilized principals for an illusion of short term security goes completely against basic conservative principals and plainly gives a win to barbarians like OBL.

Posted by: Splinter on September 29, 2006 04:06 PM
82. Splinter,

Japan and Germany were recognized governments and signatories to the GC, their combatants in large part conformed to the GC.

As many of have pointed out the current enemy is not covered by the GC.

Where is the violation of law occurring in detaining indefinitely, and holding Military Tribunals for those we have in custody?

Posted by: JCM on September 29, 2006 04:34 PM
83. Yeah these are the guys we are going to trust.
Just another in along line of Hypocritical or crooked GOP....I think it is darn close to all of them by now.


House GOP Leadership knew about Foley almost a year ago, let Foley remain in House leadership, let him remain as chair of House sex offender caucus
by John in DC - 9/29/2006 07:06:00 PM


Does House Republican leader Denny Hastert have a soft spot for child sex offenders?

Seems so. Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert has some serious explaining to do, after today's revelations that they knew about ex-Congressman Mark Foley's sexscapades a good year ago, and did nothing.

Whether or not the kid's parents were fine with letting it go, which the story says is the case, why did Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert permit Foley to remain in the House GOP leadership for almost a year after they knew he was having sex talk with minors online, minors he met on the job?

Why did Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert leave Foley as the co-chair of the House body in charge of child sex offenses for a good year after they knew?

Why did Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert permit Foley to stay in the House at all, where he would be around other pages every day all day long?

And just as importantly, why did Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert let Foley lie publicly yesterday about the emails, claiming they were innocent, and simply a dirty attack from the Democrats, when the House leadership knew the real story?

And finally, we find out that the FBI was contacted two months about this story. Was there any follow-up from the Bush FBI? Or did they just let this potential case of child sex offense go by the wayside because it involved a friend of Bush?

Posted by: danw on September 29, 2006 04:41 PM
84. Maybe he is quiting to get in line for the new "Legal" Rape rooms. He has connections.

Posted by: danw on September 29, 2006 04:43 PM
85. JCM -

The whole point of Common Article 3 is to address those parties that have not signed up to the GC.

Posted by: Splinter on September 29, 2006 04:50 PM
86. Back on subject.
Would you allow president Clinton to say Ann Coulter is an "Alien Combatant"? She doesn't have to prove it, to lock that Skank up without her being able to do a thing about it.
You folks just don't get it.
Habeus Corpus is what makes western civilization work.
Let alone let Drunkie McMonkey determine what and what isn't torture.
Checks and Balances folks. We don't need a King.

Posted by: danw on September 29, 2006 04:58 PM
87. Back on subject.
Would you allow president Clinton to say Ann Coulter is an "Alien Combatant"? She doesn't have to prove it, to lock that Skank up without her being able to do a thing about it.
You folks just don't get it.
Habeus Corpus is what makes western civilization work.
Let alone let Drunkie McMonkey determine what and what isn't torture.
Checks and Balances folks. We don't need a King.

Posted by: danw on September 29, 2006 04:58 PM
88. danw - Would you be so kind as to point out in S.3930 where it supports your assertion that S.3930 would suspend Habeus Corpus?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 29, 2006 05:06 PM
89. Gee. It seems like me and strip clubs are the only subjects that generate discussion here any more. You guys sure have your purient interests. But glad to be of service nonetheless.

(Oh... and everybody knows that I don't censure the comment threads over at HA, and it's utterly ridiculous to assert otherwise.)

Posted by: Goldy on September 29, 2006 05:11 PM
90. Pretty full of yourself aren't you Goldy? 90 comments and you are only spoken of in less than a dozen of the comments....including your own comment.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 29, 2006 05:16 PM
91. And your comment would make it 13. ;-)

Posted by: Splinter on September 29, 2006 05:17 PM
92. Why not mention Goldy, he's not bright enough to know the difference between Censure and Censor. He is a legend in his own mind. Too bad he doesn't bring his tough punk act to East King County for his pet project baby Darcy Burner. Come on Goldy there is only a one in four chance some gramdma will kick your pasty white ass to the curb in the first half hour of door-belling.

Posted by: Huh? on September 29, 2006 06:19 PM
93. "(Oh... and everybody knows that I don't censure the comment threads over at HA, and it's utterly ridiculous to assert otherwise.)"

Goldstein you are a damn liar! I am callin you out!
(Verbally so to speak)

Posted by: pbj on September 29, 2006 06:46 PM
94. At last! Waiting all day to get home and post! PBJ are you married????????????? You probably are! There aren't enough guy's like you out in the single world and I understand why! Keep up the excellent dissent!

Posted by: Peaches Marie on September 29, 2006 08:26 PM
95. of the libs!

Posted by: Peaches Marie on September 29, 2006 08:32 PM
96. If you have contempt for Goldy, tell everyone to get out there and vote for Reichert - his ego needs to get smacked but good !

Posted by: KS on September 29, 2006 08:37 PM
97. 89. Gee. It seems like me and strip clubs are the only subjects that generate discussion here any more. You guys sure have your purient interests. But glad to be of service nonetheless.

(Oh... and everybody knows that I don't censure the comment threads over at HA, and it's utterly ridiculous to assert otherwise.)

Posted by Goldy at September 29, 2006 05:11 PM "

Well isnt it nice to know that you are right up there with "Strip Clubs"......

BTW
90 + posts on SP = 300 equal posts on your blog. Reason=have to weed out the useless bot post including the repetitive (6) regulars you have that post 80% if your traffic.

At least at SP, you don't read 4-letter words. Does your daughter or ex-inlaws read HA (your blog)? I hope not. I would be ashamed if I was you.

Goodluck Goldy......I hope the president of your local PTA or homeowners assoc. doesn't read it either. Just a pointer as a parent, take it or leave it, but it will FOLLOW you forever.

Posted by: Chris on September 29, 2006 10:29 PM
98. I wonder if Goldy hopes his kid will have as foul a mouth as he and his blog have? I sure hope not for the kid's sake. I sincerely hope he wakes up one day and realizes that the kid is so precious that she deserves such a better role model than that. And that he starts being the stellar role model the kid deserves.

Posted by: Misty on September 29, 2006 11:59 PM
99. Sorry Goldy, You have 1/2 the traffic this site does, and thats even when Roger Rabbit is occupying over half of your comment fields. Tell the truth when you come over here! It's hard to be a Maytag repairman, but just wait by the blog, someday they may have a need for you.

Read em and Weep

Sound Politics

VISITS

Total 4,557,779
Average Per Day 4,853
Average Visit Length 2:15
Last Hour 104
Today 432
This Week 33,973

PAGE VIEWS

Total 7,464,577
Average Per Day 11,509
Average Per Visit 2.4
Last Hour 245
Today 1,058
This Week 80,560


Horsesass.org

VISITS

Total 1,105,436
Average Per Day 2,662
Average Visit Length 2:26
Last Hour 70
Today 27
This Week 18,636

PAGE VIEWS

Total 2,192,391
Average Per Day 4,574
Average Per Visit 1.7
Last Hour 124
Today 42
This Week 32,019


Posted by: GS on September 30, 2006 12:17 AM
100. Goldie, what would you expect to happen if you announced you were going to go to the nearest high school and rape a bunch of coeds, shooy one and a cop, then yourself?
What if you got on a plane and claimed you were going to fly a plane into a building?
We no longer have the luxury of waiting to see if you mean it, and I suspect if someone announced the intention of raping the next one he saw, nothing was done about it and you were that next one, you would squeal like a stuck pig.
I hope they drag your ass in and keep yelling "What's the frequency" for 22 hours a day for a week.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on September 30, 2006 03:00 AM
101. Here's what all you right-wingers have let yourself in for:

The Hidden Upside to the End of Constitutional Protections: Jailing James Dobson, Forever
by Hunter

We have been dismayed by the parlor game going on in the halls of power, true enough. An anti-torture bill designed to codify torture; the acceptance and legalization of domestic espionage without court order or demonstrable cause; the removal of habeas corpus, one of those petty legal terms that the entire arc of American law relies upon. The Republican Party decided that their election-year strategy, this September, would be to take boxcutters to the Constitution, and they found just enough accomplices to do it.

But there are upsides, here. And the primary upside is that, after being a movement dominated by the terror of government ready to go amok, people who carried the Bill of Rights on cards in their wallets and stockpiled guns with the belief that only guns would save them, the conservative and far-right movements have finally given us the precise legal tools to remove the far-right from the national landscape. Forever.

Before Osama bin Laden, there was the American citizen and terrorist Timothy McVeigh, who drove a truck full of explosives to the front of a government building and detonated it, as an act of terrorism against the United States. Before the Cole bombing, there was an organized series of mail bombings against judges, bombings of abortion clinics, assassinations of abortion doctors, conducted by those affiliated with Operation Rescue and an assortment of domestic terrorist organizations. Weaponized anthrax, sent to news outlets and liberal politicians. The Atlanta Olympics were attacked by terrorists as well, a shrapnel-laced explosive detonated in the crowded Olympic village in order to cause as many deaths as possible. Even if al Qaeda had not existed, the unholy wraith of terrorism against Americans, on American soil, still would be a compounding and urgent problem. And all of those acts were perpetrated by Americans, and specifically by the American far-right.

These acts of conservative terrorism have been all but forgotten, after bin Laden's crimes. But they are domestic terrorism, and were explicitly intended as such, and of the sort that these new Republican, conservative laws are precisely aimed at taking on.

The advantage of these new laws in these new times is, bluntly, that normal rules of evidence no longer apply, and that those charged with aiding terrorism need not be granted a trial; no actual crime need be alleged; no evidence need be presented against them; nobody else is required to be even informed of their imprisonment; there is no appeal. If the President of the United States determines them to be affiliated with terrorism -- and it does not matter if that President is Republican or Democrat -- the judgment is final. All that is required to strip an American citizen of their Constitutional rights, strip them of their citizenship itself, and declare them an enemy combatant in the fight against terrorism is the say-so of the President. That's it.

So if we are dejected, today, that Americans no longer are protected by the Constitution, cheer up just a bit. Because from now on, American terrorists and their conservative supporters aren't protected by the Constitution either. It has been changed, in this time of war, according to their own new laws -- and that means that at the first point in which the Republicans lose power, these same new laws can be used to imprison those that all reasonable men agree are terrorists, and their supporters, and those giving them assistance and comfort.


The entire far-right conservative movement is tied, in no more than two or three degrees of separation, to U.S. terrorist Timothy McVeigh. His roots and his support were based in the conservative militia movement, a collection of far-right groups and organizations, many of them white supremacist in nature or affiliated with the even more noxious Christian Identity movement. Many of these groups stockpile guns and ammunition in the direct belief that those guns will be required against the U.S. government, and in places like Ruby Ridge and Waco, have brought those weapons to bear. They are proven terrorists; this much is indisputable. Under the new laws, future Attorneys General will be able to mark these individuals as enemy combatants, and no further Constitutional protections will apply. Janet Reno will be marked as the last Attorney General to have had to deal with terrorism unequipped with the new laws designed to strip such figures of their citizenship and trial rights.

A mere presidential finding, now, is now sufficient to determine which men among these conservative militia groups are the terrorist leaders, and which are the followers, and which are supporters. The acts of Timothy McVeigh were praised by many, on the right. Those men are themselves terrorists; arrest them. The men supporting the militia movements through word and deed; they, too are terrorists. Arrest them as well. Then there are merely the abettors. The Timothy McVeighs of the movement are supported by figures such as right-wing radio hosts Hal Turner; Turner himself is a right-wing racist figure who rose to fame because of the support and endorsement of his "good friend", Sean Hannity. The links between Sean Hannity and the dozens of militia members who have shaken his hand, repeatedly, are more than enough to prove complicity.

After the Oklahoma City act of terrorism, Rush Limbaugh was in full-on public snit not that the event happened, but that the act of terrorism was being linked to him, and his unique brand of militia-supporting "hate radio" -- he even made the assertion that Clinton himself was making the accusation of him. Under the new rules of engagement of American-based terrorists, however, such an accusation by the President is indeed sufficient, and Limbaugh can and will simply be jailed if it is determined by a future Democratic president that his words or rhetoric gave comfort or assistance or resulted in secondary monetary gain to militia members with ties to past terrorism or possible future terrorist acts. That should not be a difficult thing to prove; nonetheless, proof is unnecessary. The accusation will suffice to place Limbaugh in a secret jail, and there will be no trial, and we will be rid of him.

Whatever the case against Limbaugh, the case against Michelle Malkin is open and shut. Malkin directly promotes and associates with the hate group VDare, which in turn shares its membership directly with some of the very militia groups in question. Of all the figures of the "popular" far-right, Malkin is one with the most direct ties to American terrorist organizations. A presidential finding on the subject would take little more than a paragraph.

Thanks to the new laws, domestic wiretapping may be used to solidify the links between Malkin and those in the far-right, white supremacy movements she frequents. More to the point, however, all that it takes to concretely tie Malkin to the Timothy McVeigh-supporting terrorists directly is the confession of one individual. I am quite certain that, if we tortured enough people, we would find at least one willing to name Michelle Malkin as a terrorist ringleader, in exchange for their own freedom. I am certain we would find five, or twenty, if the torture was sufficiently encouraging, within the first ten hours.

From there, we move on to Ann Coulter, who makes oblique but uncannily specific threats against Supreme Court justices, lawmakers, the press, and all other Americans she defines as against her. It is hard to imagine, in a time of war, that a Democratic president should allow speech that seems explicitly designed to evoke images of assassination, poisonings, attacks by plane, bombings, or other chosen methods of death against fellow Americans. All that is required is that one person be found, in the far-right network of terrorism, who listened to her words and found inspiration from them to possibly think about attacks of the sort she endorses; that is reason enough to detain Ms. Coulter while investigating whether or not she, too, is an enemy combatant. Tortured confessions would be useful here, too, to determine how much influence Ann Coulter had within the terrorist ranks of the McVeighs and the even worse far-right Christian terrorists, the Rudolphs.

The links between Oklahoma City and the white supremacist movements of the militias, and their "light" versions for public face -- the KKK, Stormfront, VDare, the Minutemen -- are incontrovertable. They share the same memberships, and receive funding via the same methods and same individuals. Their "front" organizations are popular and powerful in conservative circles, fixtures at hosts of prominent GOP events, and have been supported not only by Trent Lott and George Allen, but by figures like Vice President Richard Cheney.


But as horrific as Oklahoma City was, as an act of terrorism, a man detonating, among other things, the children of a preschool, in his one horrific terrorist act, the terrorist acts of the far-right "Christian" movement are worse. Throughout the 1990s, and before, and since, far-right domestic terrorist groups such as Operation Rescue and their affiliated groups have conducted organized campaigns of intimidation, bombings, and assassinations. The "lone wolf" terrorism of a Timothy McVeigh -- which, as I pointed out, is far from "lone wolf", but was supported and encouraged by a network of thousands of like-minded militia members, many of whom have been arrested in the course of planning or collecting weapons for similar terrorist attacks -- is one thing, but anti-abortion terrorism is quite organized, and extensive in reach.

Christian terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph currently sits in prison under five consecutive life sentences for a series of anti-abortion bombings that injured over one hundred and fifty people, and killed at least three. He was supported in ongoing acts of terrorism by churches, communities, and individuals who sheltered him and aided his efforts.

His acts, though, were not the acts of a lone wolf. Further assassinations and bombings have been carried out by Operation Rescue, a far-right terrorist organization which targets clinics, doctors, and judges in an attempt to force the American government to ban abortion under all circumstances. Other figures in the movement have placed "hit lists" of doctors online, crossing them out as each was attacked or killed.

These acts are acts of religious-based terrorism; attempts at subverting the laws of America itself through violence. These acts, more than any others, are the acts which the new Republican-codified exceptions to the Constitution can be used to finally break the back of. We have been given the tools to jail not just the individuals responsible for these acts, but those that have provided them monetary support through a myriad of conservative fronts and advocacy groups.

First among the ringleaders must be James Dobson and Ralph Reed, radical extremists who have spoken in support of the most extreme of the extreme, and who join a series of right-wing figures such as Hugh Hewitt and others whose support for Christian terrorism and terrorist acts have been ongoing. They and any others connected to Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry are part and parcel of American terrorist acts, and each should be treated as the others -- as enemy combatents, supporters of past terrorist acts directly undertaken against America.

Evidence is not needed. A presidential assertion will suffice. To hold trials of these men, public trials in which the evidence of their affiliation with the group is detailed, would only serve to inform the entire rest of the terrorist movement which names the government currently knew, and which were not.

Randall Terry, however, is a special exception. Alongside Dobson and a few of the others, it may be the case that when dealing with a high-value target, someone with possibly direct knowledge of terrorist acts and how they were executed, that more extreme means rather than mere secret imprisonment will be necessary to find the individuals actually responsible for those acts of terrorism.

Torture may be required, in service to America. The president shall have to make the determination as to whether it will be productive, but I expect it will be. I expect Randall Terry will be able to tell us the names of many, many terrorists affiliated with his group. And if he cannot, the president will be able to authorize further encouragement.

You may think I am overstating the case, here. I am not. The links -- one, two, and three degrees of separation -- between those far-right figures that have conducted actual acts of violent terrorism on American soil and those that have offered them financial support or other aid are quite real.

If there is one man who can in fact be tied directly with international terrorism, in fact, it is terrorist figure Pat Robertson. Through ownership in the blood diamond trade of Africa, Robertson can count himself as one of the few figures in America with finances directly linked to al Qaeda supporters. Robertson has refused to be forthcoming about how much money he made, in these al Qaeda links. That answer is not sufficient.

The list can go on, if we are merely talking about those complicit in actions against America, now that the rule of law has been stripped of its fineries in determining how these men should be charged. Is there any man on this planet who has done more damage to the Constitution of the United States than John Yoo, for that matter? If there was ever an enemy of the State, would it not be him, for justifying via his own enlightened words what two hundred years of law before him could not? For encouraging these abominations of law, would not the ultimate in justice be to use them against him, himself -- using the maggot-riddled remnants of what he proposed as fair law to investigate, via a prison cell, whether his own crimes against the Constitution were malicious, or merely stupidity?


I am merely pointing out the upside, here. I am merely pointing out that, in their fear of terrorism, the far-right has given America, finally, the exact tools needed to destroy them forever. It may have been wiser for the militia movements to carry the Bill of Rights in their back pocket, to distrust government authority, to distrust the notion of President-as-King, capable of nullifying law, seizing without trial, canceling the citizenship of Americans, and rendering to secret prisons, but now that the law has been changed, we liberals must seize the opportunity, and use their very laws against them. We have been spineless in the face of terrorism too long: it is time to confront it where it lives, and where it breeds.

All it takes is one Democratic president, and the force of will to declare the obvious -- that the supporters of far-right abortion bombers are terrorists themselves, every bit as much as those that pulled the triggers or lit the fuses. That the militia movements are terrorists. Not just terrorists -- no longer Americans, no longer with the rights of trial, by presidential decision. Not negotiable. Terrorists, and any that support them, also terrorists. Look at Oklahoma City, at Ruby Ridge, at Waco, and tell me flatly that those men are not terrorists. Look at the bombings of judges who interfered in the violent anti-abortion crusade. Count the victims of the pipe bombs, and you tell me, if you dare, that this is not terrorism. It is. You know it, I know it, and James Dobson himself knows it.

The far-right has degraded America. Now it is time to end them, using the tools they themselves proposed. We are one president away.


Now, you may be thinking that this is all an elaborate joke, of the sort I pull from time to time. A bit of satire notable for being not the slightest, least, tiniest bit funny. That I am not proposing that all those that met and spoke with Timothy McVeigh should be branded themselves as enemy combatants and disposed of as supporters of terrorists, under the laws we have now explicitly crafted to allow the government to do just that. That I am not really proposing that we merely trace the financial links between the very GOP infrastructure itself, Scaife on down, and the actual terrorists who have committed actual acts of politically inspired murder, and using those links to shut down those front organizations and jail their leaders.

But the new law is the new law, and the new law is now quite clear, and we would be foolish, foolish people indeed to let them, the actual supporters of terrorism, use it against their fellow Americans, and have us leave it unused. In defending against terrorism, Constitutional protections must waver. These are unique times, when a single man can drive a truck up to a single building and murder hundreds of men, women and children in a single instant -- and the odds are nearly 100% that, whether foreign or domestic, that terrorist will be a far-right religious fanatic. When a single lone man with a gun can wait outside a doctor's office, and assassinate the man, and then through a collection of like-minded men do it again, and again, this is terrorism. This is what we are fighting, and whether the terrorism comes from Osama bin Laden or the hundreds of willing Eric Rudolphs in America makes no difference, to those that are dead. Is America worth that fight? Do you love it enough to violate it, just a little, in order to save it, and be rid of the violent forever, finally in secret jails where only they know whether we got the right men, or the wrong men?


So -- is this satire, then? Am I pulling your legs?

Well, that is the interesting thing about the conservative movement. Ann Coulter can write with viciousness, can write even about assassinations and murders, and upon the slightest objection, the conservative movement merely claims she is an entertainer, and nobody should take her seriously. I am merely proposing we use the new Republican laws to jail Republicans known to support Republican terrorists; that hardly seems extremist at all, compared to the glib support of murders.

And Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Hewitt, and every militia member on the planet are infamous for that one conservative trait that outshines all the others -- the inability to recognize satire in the slightest. The complete inability to determine when someone is making fun of them, and when someone is deadly earnest.

So is it a joke, or do we really intend to do these things, when the next Democratic president takes office -- one not directly tied to the far-right terrorist groups themselves, as George W. Bush has been, but one willing to use the new American tools of terrorism against all terrorists, not just brown ones?

I propose we don't tell them. I propose we leave them in the dark, and let them wonder. If this were indeed merely a bout of deeply unfunny satire, not telling them so might be the cruelest joke of all.

Posted by: ivan on September 30, 2006 04:45 AM
102. Well it's nice to know that the "All you can eat buffet" kept up with Ivan until at least 4:45 A.M.

All of that Cut and Paste and your own little burp at the end. Too bad there is not a real thought or point in the bunch.

Do you really believe anybody cares what you think Ivan? You and Goldy are irrelevant to anyone in polite society interested in an intelligent discussion. Now if you were writing about something you have some street credibility with like the trans-fats ban, maybe people would take you seriously.

Posted by: Huh? on September 30, 2006 07:23 AM
103. And with that iban shows us that he has learned the ancient art of cut & paste. Tomorrow he displays his skills at smearing his own feces on his head and calling it a hat.

Way to go iban!

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 30, 2006 07:25 AM
104. so ivan...
When the terrorists invade our homeland, how will YOU escape??
I'd love to watch you try to run away...all 400 lbs of you.
ivan is a Union Thug who lives off the Union Dues of hard working people.
Take a look at this loser.
ivan is the fattest one....
http://www.34dems.org/Photos2006/Aug06-Weiss-Hannigan.jpg

Posted by: dude on September 30, 2006 07:41 AM
105. WOW folks...you've gotta take a look at ivan!!!
http://www.34dems.org/Photos2006/Aug06-Weiss-Hannigan.jpg

No wonder ivan is such a bitter bastard.
ivan is the clown on the LEFT (surprisingly).
You can barely make out his facial features.
ivan...those union dues taste pretty dang good don't they!
Too bad for you The Supreme Court will soon take away a huge hunk of those EXTORTED dollars from hard-working folks that you have sucked off of for decades. And after the Supreme Court takes a huge hunk....a Right to Work Initiative will take the rest!
Poor ivan.....how will he survive without extorted Union dues???????????????/
I think ivan can live off the fat for about 10 years.

Posted by: duh! on September 30, 2006 07:47 AM
106. Huh? - That's too funny! GMTA and all that.

It's amazing that anyone would admit to being so dim that they would actually regard a piece of absolute tripe like what iban posted with any seriousness whatsoever. I guess it just shows the state of degeneracy of the current Dhimmicrat "activist" and why they are losing.

iban, I can't wait 'til chaper 37 when the evil Emperor Ming threatens to blow up the planet Mongo with his disibiguator ray!

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 30, 2006 07:58 AM
107. We should run Jeb in '08 just to drive iban and ilk to new states of frenzy with BDS.

Posted by: JCM on September 30, 2006 08:58 AM
108. Ivan excellent Post.
Same old sh*t from this group. Don't read or understand the slippery slope. Just attack the messenger. They think they will be in power forever, so they shouldn't be concerned about their form of terroism.
Who do you think Queen Hilary will lock up first?
We probably won't know, just thought they ran away from their spouses.
I would like to sign up for the new Torture jobs, do you apply with the NSA?
I can think of a lot of things we could shove up Ann C*ntlers a*s. If you think she talks a lot now, wait till she weighs 100 pounds.

Posted by: danw on September 30, 2006 09:58 AM
109. Hey, guys, don't allow the ivan troll and danw troll suck you into their own perverted type of derangement. Let them sink into their own morass without parroting their style.

Posted by: katomar on September 30, 2006 10:11 AM
110. danw--
ivan is still morbidly obese.
And ivan is still a union thug who sucks off mandatory, extorted union dues.
Consider the messenger danw (who is also by the way a UNION THUG!!)

Posted by: dude on September 30, 2006 12:37 PM
111. Yea iban, you really stirred 'em up this time! You even got danw to crawl out of his momma's basement to cheer you on.

dan, I see from your resume that you've already practiced torture techniques on small animals and all your male relatives. The klintoon II administration may just have a position for you (although the job of buggering baby baboons was already taken by iban itself).

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 30, 2006 12:41 PM
112. C'mon, people, enough of this crap! katomar's right, too many of the commenters in this posting are sinking to the liberals' level with the gratuitous attacks.

The difference (most of the time, anyway) between us and the loony left is that we can engage in reasoned discussion about the issues without flying off the handle. Ivan's inability to understand basic English when he reads the text of the bill (post 65) and his inability to understand that American citizens are not at risk has nothing to do with how fat he is. I understand it, and I weigh 275 and stand 5'8" tall. I think my Body Mass Index is around 1000.

So just accept that he's not worth listening to, refute what he has to say (or cut and paste) when it's necessary, and move on.

Posted by: sr on September 30, 2006 01:23 PM
113. sr--
Actually, ivan likes the abuse.....we are merely attempting to "feed" his overwhelming hankering for it.
ivan is a UNION THUG who dips into the dues to support himself.
I doubt many fellow Union members know that he spends his time posting non-sensical crap ON THEIR DIME!
Sorry if you are offended by the fatboy jokes sr, but ivan is a "gluton" for punishment.

Posted by: duh! on September 30, 2006 02:22 PM
114. Re: Ivan #101 and Huh? #102.

There is nothing new here. All of this is the same old leftist B.S. that they have invented about conservatives. Yes, Huh? all cut and paste and no brains.

Ivan, I'll touch on a few things here but not all as I don't have that much time to waste (but that doesn't mean that the unmentioned aren't just as bogus).

Point Ivan, no abortion clinic has been bombed by any Christian. The one guy that DID bomb a clinic was an avowed atheist. Simple fact is that most if not all violence in our country is perped by the left. The instances of which you write were never proved to be conservatives. But, for the sake of conversation, let us say what you (oh excuse me your cut and paste) say is right on those few points, (which it is not) . . . the overwhelming violence is this country has been perped by the left. The WTOs, the numerous burning and bombings by the Earth Liberation Front and its animal allies, pictures of labor union thugs beating up old ladies just because they held the wrong candidate's sign and the list goes on. And this has been happening since the 60's. Remember "burn baby burn"? Those were leftists buddy. Communism has killed hundreds of thousands if not millions.

I think people like me have a unique view of leftists because they used to buy-into their program and then, with thought and reason over a few years, figured out it all doesn't work very well, is killing the country, and eventually switched. We've seen both sides, you however have not. You just read about those nasty conservatives (starving grandmas, killing welfare babies, stealing money from the poor and giving it to the rich, you know all the stuff don't you?) but you never looked at the truth, just the dogma because digesting dogma is easy. After I switched, I found out that the 3 most generous people I know from my youth, and the ones now, were rock ribbed conservatives, Conversely, over time I found out that biggest tax cheats and the people who were most stingy *with their own money* were liberals I associated with.

So that's all I'm going to do for now . . .

Posted by: G Jiggy on September 30, 2006 04:11 PM
115. McVey was pissed off because of the abortive Waco barbecue, but he was never accepted by any right wing orgnization, one of which tossed him out.
I was pissed off bu Ruby Ridge, Waco and Elian Gonzales, but correctly identified them as an aberation of the administration rather than a general expression of public will.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on September 30, 2006 07:17 PM
116. To Comment 89: Goldy, you are a dipshit. You can't even spell "censor" in context with your statement.

When you can spell, I'll consider taking you seriously. Well, maybe not... Actually, I'll never take you seriously, because you're a militantly stupid mouth-breathing liberal snot who wouldn't cross the street for the things he thinks society owes him. Loser.

Posted by: ERNurse on October 1, 2006 02:05 PM
117. "The Atlanta Olympics were attacked by terrorists as well, a shrapnel-laced explosive detonated in the crowded Olympic village in order to cause as many deaths as possible. Even if al Qaeda had not existed, the unholy wraith of terrorism against Americans, on American soil, still would be a compounding and urgent problem. And all of those acts were perpetrated by Americans, and specifically by the American far-right." - Ivan

Ivan has a memory problem. From their beginnings in terrorism in the 1960's the left has been on a constant drumbeat of carnage. Who can forget the terrorist group "The Weathermen aka The Weather Underground":

"Within months of the Weathermen's formation, the group began planning its terrorist activities. In October 1969, the Weathermen orchestrated the "Days of Rage" or "national Action." During the Days of Rage, Weathermen rioted in the streets, destroying public property, and detonating an explosive at the Haymarket police statue. In December 1969, Weathermen bombed police vehicles to protest the murders of two Black Panther leaders.

In late December 1969, the Weathermen hold a meeting in Flint, Michigan, where the group decides to go "underground" and thereafter commit clandestine terrorist attacks within the United States. At this point, the group changes their name to the Weather Underground Organization (WUO). While attempting to build explosives, a WUO cell blew up themselves and their Greenwich Village townhouse in March 1970. Later that same month, a WUO cell is discovered in Chicago along with a cache of weapons. The Chicago bust severely curtailed WUO's operational capabilities in Chicago. In another notable criminal act, WUOP members assisted in the prison break-out of Timothy Leary on September 12, 1970. By this time, WUO had moved beyond amorphous "leftist" beliefs and was now supporting communist goals. Several members of the group had traveled to Cuba, where they allegedly met with representatives of the communist governments of Cuba and North Vietnam. In addition, WUO member Linda Sue Evans had traveled to North Vietnam in August 1969. "


And this from CNN:


"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Violent animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists now pose one of the most serious terrorism threats to the nation, top federal law enforcement officials said Wednesday.

Senior officials from the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) and Explosives told a Senate panel of their growing concern over these groups.

Of particular concern are the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).

John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990. The FBI has 150 pending investigations associated with animal rights or eco-terrorist activities, and ATF officials say they have opened 58 investigations in the past six years related to violence attributed to the ELF and ALF.

In the same period violence from groups like the Ku Klux Klan and anti-abortion extremists have declined, Lewis said.

The ELF has been linked to fires set at sport utility vehicle dealerships and construction sites in various states, while the ALF has been blamed for arson and bombings against animal research labs and the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry.

No deaths have been blamed on attacks by those groups so far, but the attacks have increased in frequency and size, said Lewis.

"Plainly, I think we're lucky. Once you set one of these fires they can go way out of control," Lewis said.

ATF Deputy Assistant Director Carson Carroll agreed with Lewis' assessment.

"The most worrisome trend to law enforcement and private industry alike has been the increase in willingness by these movements to resort to the use of incendiary and explosive devices," he said."

In terms of bodycount, leftist terrorists have no equal. They terminate the lives of 1.5 million Americans annually. They celebrate their morbid monopoly with festivals and forums under the umbrella of feminism.

Ms. Magazine Starts Campaign to Celebrate Abortion

By Terry Vanderheyden

BEVERLY HILLS, August 2, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ms. magazine has initiated an on-line and print campaign inviting women to celebrate the murder of their unborn children by surgical abortion. The campaign is a protest against the South Dakota abortion ban.

"I Had an Abortion" is the headline now appearing on Ms. magazine's web site. Abortion activism is nothing new to the magazine: "I Had an Abortion" was also the headline for a petition that appeared in the 1972 debut edition, when 53 women admitted that they had procured abortions, "despite state laws redering (sic) the procedure illegal," the web site declares.

"Thirty-three years after Roe, Ms. created a new petition so that women can speak out about abortion in even larger numbers," the web site proclaims. The petition asserts as "absurd" that a state could ban the killing of the unborn. The South Dakota ban has been stayed pending a November plebiscite. Ms. Magazine also bemoans that 17 states have introduced trigger laws, or pre-Roe bans to ban abortion in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

"A myriad of restrictions already limit access to abortion in the U.S. for poor women, young women, and women in the military," the petition bewails. "We know it is time again for women of conscience to stand up and speak truth to power."

"In a continued attempt to normalize the act of abortion, some women in the pro-abortion movement have taken absurdity to a new level with a campaign bragging about their past abortions," commented Judie Brown, president of American Life League. "These women are celebrating an act of violence that has proven traumatic for millions of mothers and deadly for their innocent preborn children."

Posted by: pbj on October 1, 2006 10:24 PM
118. Since when is following due process and the rule of law considered "coddling"?

Posted by: Mark on October 2, 2006 10:23 AM
119. Mark 118: You really need to get plugged in. This is not new news.

The enemy combatants are given due process via military tribunals. That is what we did for uniformed enemies in WWII and doing that for an enemy combatant is a step up for them, "rule of law" wise. Geneva conventions allow for SHOOTING ON THE SPOT of an enemy combatant. And that is what we did in WWII.

Funny how you want to give these guys more than they are owed. For sure you want to give them more than they give our guys when captured. They behead our guys and give 'em a little hard core torture before they do that. Buy "hard core" I mean beatings, knifing and genital removal not water boarding or putting panties on their heads.

Posted by: G Jiggy on October 2, 2006 10:14 PM
120. JCM wrote "To all those whining about the supposed violations of rights. Remember this the enemy in this war would strap a bomb on their body, and walk into the mall food court where you are sitting with your family and blow your child into 100 bloody bits."

Too bad we all have a higher likelihood of a child of one of the parrots on here using one of their semi-automatic rifles (for hunting of course) on us at the mall or school. but hey, let's spend billions more spawning more "islamofascists". whatever that is. perhaps folks should look up the history of the word before they start using it in that context. starting to look a lot more like that here at home.

Posted by: mc on October 4, 2006 02:50 PM
121. MC-
"Too bad we all have a higher likelihood of a child of one of the parrots on here using one of their semi-automatic rifles"

...and your verifiable stats & data are from where?...i thought so...

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 5, 2006 12:16 PM
122. http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc530.html

how ya doin now jimmie? probably no different. you'll probably come back and ask me to perform the statistical analysis myself.

unless you have a counter analysis that proves otherwise........

Posted by: mc on October 5, 2006 03:14 PM
123. MC--didnt check it yet, but who's the sponsor org? neutral? pro gun? con gun? that matters--who's funding and for what intended "result." but thanks for the info. i'll read & consider.

and no, you don't have to do my analyses nor patronize me nor warm my milk bottle, thank you. have some respect. i'm not a screaming, anger-pizzing leftist. just someone who-like you-does not want my 2nd Amendment (or other) rights trampled out of knee-jerk gut reactions and quick-fix (ineffective) bad laws.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 5, 2006 07:30 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?